`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BRIDGELUX, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.17-cv-03363-JSW (EDL)
`
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER
`BRIEFS
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 69, 77, 81
`
`
`
`
`
`District Judge White referred this case to the Court for discovery purposes. Pending before
`
`Court is a letter brief filed by Plaintiff Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Defendant Bridgelux,
`
`Inc. on December 12, 2017. The parties in this patent infringement case have also filed two letter
`
`briefs updating the Court on the status of the discovery dispute. On January 4, 2018, the Court
`
`held a hearing on this matter and ruled on the record as outlined in this order.
`
`This dispute centers on Defendant’s responsibility to provide Plaintiff with prior art
`
`references from an earlier case brought by Defendant, BridgeLux, Inc v. Cree, Inc, Docket No.
`
`9:06-cv-00240 (E.D. Tex. Oct 17, 2006). Although Defendant does not dispute the relevance of
`
`the requested materials, it has not produced them to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s assertion that it
`
`had not retained records from that litigation. It committed to seeking the documents from its prior
`
`litigation counsel, but did not ask its counsel about the Cree prior art files until just before
`
`Plaintiff’s invalidity contentions were due. See Patent L.R. 3-3. After the due date, Defendant
`
`informed Plaintiff that its counsel also had not retained them.
`
`Plaintiff requests an order that Defendant provide Plaintiff with a declaration detailing its
`
`efforts to search for the Cree records, including any electronic searches it has undertaken of its
`
`own records. The Court GRANTS that request. Defendant is ordered to produce a declaration to
`
`Plaintiff by January 11, 2018.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03363-JSW Document 92 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`Plaintiff also requests an order that it may rely on any previously unproduced materials
`
`from the Cree litigation without having to move to amend its invalidity contentions under Patent
`
`L.R. 3-6 to avoid that expense. In its most recent letter brief, Plaintiff requested an order that it be
`
`allowed to rely on a specific prior art reference, the Singer Reference, which is referenced in the
`
`Cree litigation and whose existence Defendant, despite knowing of, did not disclose to Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s failure to disclose the Singer Reference was in bad faith.
`
`Defendant opposes the issuance of this order, arguing that Plaintiff should have discovered the
`
`Singer Reference on its own by the exercise of due diligence because it was publically available
`
`as listed on the docket in the Cree litigation.
`
`The Court DECLINES to order Plaintiff’s requested relief at this time. Motions to amend
`
`invalidity contentions are addressed to the district judge. Such relief would be an unusual
`
`discovery sanction and the Court does not have the facts before it to determine whether Defendant
`
`acted in bad faith or Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence. The Court recommends that, if
`
`Plaintiff would like to rely on the Singer Reference, Plaintiff file a motion to amend its invalidity
`
`contentions before Judge White. If Judge White grants the motion, it may well be appropriate to
`
`shift the fees incurred in bringing the motion to Defendant. Defendant has no objection to this
`
`approach.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: January 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
